BooIsMyCat Loc: Somewhere

I'm looking at getting my first Macro Lens and thought posting about it here might give me some insight from others.

I have a Canon 70D and shoot mostly landscape and wildlife. Butterfly season is coming up so I thought I would try the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM but after reading "Best macro lens: 8 tested" on TechRadar I wonder if the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM would be a better buy.

Money is not an issue but I don't want to pay extra just for a name. I would use this lens for flower shots as well as butterfly shots. Not sure, never having used a macro lens before, if this would work well with something like trying to photograph hummingbirds.

Thank you in advance for your comments.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

I suggest also looking at the warranty period of these lenses, not just the initial cost.

Laura72568 Loc: Anderson TX

Sigma does have a $300 instant rebate on the lens right now...just FYI. I believe they have a 3 year extended limited warranty in the U.S. for manufacturing and workmanship defects.

BooIsMyCat Loc: Somewhere

Thanks! Sigma beats Canon on the warranty.

BooIsMyCat Loc: Somewhere

Thank you.

I see conflicting statements on whether or not the Sigma has AF. You list it as part of your equipment. Does this lens have AF?

NewBEE161 Loc: Olney, Maryland

I've used the Canon 100 marco lens for forensic evidence during the past two years. I treasure the three different distance modes and the photos are tack sharp! The lens has been free of mechanical problems, but if there was such a concern, BH Photo would have my order for another Canon 100 mm macro lens.

BooIsMyCat Loc: Somewhere

Thanks for the reply!

Used to work in a film development place where we would have to develop slides of forensic evidence for the state police now and then. Accidents and suicides mostly. Hats off to you for the work you do! Tough job.

Laura72568 Loc: Anderson TX

Yes, it does and seems to focus quite fast. Full disclosure though, I've only had it for a few weeks.
B&H states in its write up that it has Hyper Sonic Motor for Quiet Autofocus

BooIsMyCat Loc: Somewhere

Thank you!

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

There are some excellent "third party" lenses from Sigma, Tokina, Tamron and a few others. One possible problem with them is future compatibility. If some day in the future you upgrade from your 70D to some new Canon camera model, there is no guarantee that a third party lens will work properly on it. There have been numerous examples where older third party lenses have not worked with new camera models.

OTOH, in 25+ years they've been making them there hasn't been a single example of a Canon EF lens model that won't work properly with a Canon EOS camera. In fact, Canon guarantees their L-series to be compatible with all EOS cameras past, present and future. There isn't a similar guarantee on "non-L" Canon lenses (and EF-S lenses for crop cameras are limited to just those compatible crop cameras)... but there also haven't been any that haven't worked just fine.

Third party lenses can be a good value initially... and might be fine far into the future. But there is more risk of compatibility issues, than there is with a Canon OEM lens.

There actually are two Canon EF 100/2.8 USM models in production and available. Both are excellent. The primary difference is that the newer one is an L-series that has image stabilization and costs almost 2X as much, while the other doesn't have IS. The newer model has a three-range focus limiter, while the older has a two-range limiter.

Build quality is great on both. In fact, the non-L's build is identical to the EF 180/3.5 L-series lens. It just doesn't have any exotic lens elements, so doesn't qualify to be labeled with an L (under Canon's own definitions of L-series). The L-series lens is also very well made. I'd call it a toss-up in terms of build quality.

There is almost no perceptible difference in image quality between the two Canon 100mm macro lenses, either.

A big selling point for me... Both these Canon are unusual for macro lenses around this focal length, in that they can be fitted with a tripod mounting ring. This was important for me, because I use a tripod (or at least a monopod) a lot for macro work and it's always nice to have a tripod ring to work with. I am not aware of any other 90mm, 100mm, 105mm macro lenses that are designed to be fitted with a tripod mounting ring. The optional Tripod Ring B for the 100/2.8 USM costs about $168 and is the same as used on Canon MP-E 65mm and Canon 180/3.5L Macro lenses (as well as a few other non-macro Canon lenses). Optional Tripod Ring D for the 100/2.8L IS lens costs about $190. Those are prices for the OEM Canon rings. There are cheaper third party clones for each that sell for around $50 each (Can't say if the clones are as good quality as the OEM, haven't used them personally... but I know many people use the clones and most seem satisfied with them).

Both the Canon 100mm Macro lenses also are "IF" or internal focusing design. This means they don't grow longer when focused closer (some macro lenses double or triple in length). All focusing is done internally. This makes for a bit larger lens to start with.

However, the two Canon 100mm macro lenses are not as fast focusing as non-macro lenses can be. In fact, no macro lens is very fast autofocusing. This is for two reasons... One is that a macro lens has to move its focus group a long, long way to be able to focus all the way from infinity to 1:1 (or even just 1:2 in some cases). The other reason is by design... macro lenses render extremely shallow depth of field at high magnifications, so they typically use "long throw" focus which emphasizes precision over speed. Both the currently available Canon 100mm macro lenses have USM and focus limiters that help quite a bit. And their f2.8 apertures also help with focus performance. But, they still are not as fast focusing as non-macro lenses.

The 100/2.8 USM uses 58mm filters and the matching OEM lens hood is kinda huge (sold separately and pricey, but effective). I've bought a smaller screw-in hood for use with mine. The 100/2.8L IS USM uses 67mm filters and includes a matched lens hood (as do most L-series lenses) that's a little more compact, though still not small.

Of course, one key difference between the two Canon's is the IS on the $900 L-series. For this lens Canon actually developed a hybrid form of IS that works better than most at high magnifications. But it's still limited in its effectiveness. Most users agree that by the time you are close to 1:1 magnification, this lens' IS gives around one stop or less assistance... At non-macro magnifications and shooting distances it's rated to 3 to 4 stops assistance. Still, this is better than other macro lenses with stabilization, most of which give almost no practical assistance at their highest 1:1 mag.

Both the Canon macro lenses are designed to work with Canon's own MT-24EX Macro Twin Lite and MR-14EX Macro Ring Lite. The 100/2.8L IS requires and additional adapter that's sold separately, to mount either of those flash units. The 100/2.8 USM (and MP-E 65mm, EF-S 60/2.8 USM macro lenses) all allow direct mounting of those flashes. These lenses have a ridge around the front barrel where the Canon macro flashes clip on (there are various size adapters to allow use of those flashes on other Canon macro lenses, non-Canon macro lenses and Canon non-macro lenses, if desired).

Personally I use the Canon 100/2.8 USM (non-L/IS). I just don't need IS that's of somewhat limited effectiveness at macro magnifications. I put the $450 savings toward buying the tripod mounting ring and optional lens hood.

But... Your stated purposes are to shoot butterflies and hummingbirds. Frankly, I would not typically use my 100mm for that purpose. In fact, I wouldn't use any of my macro lenses (45mm, 60mm, 65mm, 90mm, 100mm, 180mm). The focal lengths and working distances simply aren't long enough for shy subjects like those. Also macro lenses are slower focusing (though the two Canon 100mm are fairly fast for macro lenses, with their USM AF drive and focus limiters) and will really struggle to keep up with hummingbirds or butterflies on the wing.

For hummingbirds and butterflies my lens choice would be my Canon EF 300/4L IS USM. This is a handholdable lens and the closest focusing of Canon's "big white" primes. It gets close to 1/3 life size on it's own (most of the other Canon lenses longer than 200mm can only do 1/4 or 1/5 life size at best). And it can be made closer focusing yet by adding an extension tube. It also has quite fast AF - faster than any macro lens. And it has a focus limiter.

The new EF 100-400mm L IS USM Mark II might be an even more versatile choice, thanks to it's zoom range. It too is pretty close focusing, able to shoot close to 1/3 life size (0.31X) on it's own (a nice improvement over the 1/5 life size (0.2X) of the original 100-400mm. The Mark II has very fast focus and a focus limiter, too. Of course, the 100-400mm II is a more expensive choice ($2100) than any of the macro lenses or the EF 300/4L IS USM ($1350). Also the 100-400 II is bulkier and heavier (3.5 lb. vs 2.6 lb. for the 300/4 or vs. under 1.5 lb. for either of the 100mm macro lenses), so it will be a bit more challenging to handhold for longer periods of time (I might suggest a monopod... the lens comes with a tripod mounting ring).

The Sigma 120-400mm OS HSM ($800) may be a good alternative to the Canon 100-400mm... but is not quite as close focusing on it's own. It can do close to 1/4 life size (0.23X) on it's own. But adding a macro extension ring behind it would increase it's magnification potential. This Sigma also is a little heavier than the Canon 100-400mm.

I really think that - for butterflies and hummingbirds, neither of which typically require anything close to 1:1 or even 1:2 magnification - one of these non-macro lenses would be a better choice, offering longer focal lengths, better working distance and considerably faster focusing... yet with adequate magnification for these types of subjects.

BooIsMyCat Loc: Somewhere

You touch on a lot of points which gives me lots to consider.
Thank you

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Look for a longer lens - you'll have greater working distance and less risk of disturbing the subjects. a 150-180mm is ideal for what you want to do. There are some differences among all of these, but I don't think any one of them is bad, nor any one of them significantly better than the rest. I have used Nikon's 55, 60, 85, 90, 105, and 200mm macro lenses. I ended up purchasing the Sigma 150, Tamron 180, and the three PC-E lenses, which although they are not true macros only providing up to 1:2 magnification, they are pretty good for flowers and larger subjects, and having the tilt feature to better control depth of field makes life easier. I will say that I was very satisfied with my results regardless of which of these I used.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

FWIW, the Sigma has three options on it's focus-limiter switch, so the concern about it having to "hunt-focus" the entire focal range should not be relevant

Flash Falasca Loc: Beverly Hills, Florida

take a look at the Tokina 100mm 2.8 D AT-X pro

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

I like the Tamron 180 mm Macro working distance is longer so less chance of spooking a bird or an insect